EFFECTS OF TWO AND FOUR PERIODS OF

PHYSICAL EDUCATION ON THE MOTOR FITNESS

OF GRADE VI BOYS AND GIRLS

A Thesis

Presented to

the Faculty of Education

McGill U~iversity

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

(Education)

by

Harold Charles Julius Hansen

May 1968

® Harold Charles Julius Hansen

TO JUDY,

LORI,

TREVOR, and

SUE-ANN

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is indebted to many people who

assisted in the planning and execution of

this study. Deepest gratitude is expressed

to his major advisor, Dr. R.E. Wilkinson,

and to Dr. J.H. Widdop.

Appreciation is also expressed to Mr. M.

Davies, Hr. L.J.B. Clark and the school

principals, without whose co-operation and

understanding the study could not have been

undertaken.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . .

II.

Statement of the Problem.

Hypotheses

Definition of Terms •

Limitations of Study.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

. . .

· .

· .

iv

PAGE

1

5

5

6

7

8

Studies at the College and High School Level. 8

Studies at the Elementary Level · . . . . 10

Studies Directly Related to this Research 13

III.

Summary

PROCEDURES

. . . . . . . . . . .

Description of Sample

Description of the Instrument •

Procedures

IV. RESULTS . . . . . . Experimental Girls Versus Control Girls •.•

Experimental Boys Versus Control Boys

Experimental Girls Versus Experimental Boys •

Control Girls Versus Control Boys

Other Comparisons . • • . • . •• . • • •

Total Control Group Versus Total Experimental

Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

18

18

22

27

31

31

36

50

53

56

61

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER

V. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

Summary • • • • • • . .

PAGE

67

71

VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS • . 74

Summary

Conclusions •

Recommendations •

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . .. ..... APPENDIX . . . . . . . .. ..... .

74

75

77

79

â'1

TABLE

I.

II.

III.

IV.

LIST OF TABLES

Selection of the Sample

Allocation of Teachers to Schools •

Reliabili ties and Factor~~ Loadings of Fleishman

Battery of Tests

Test Schedu.le

vi

PAGE

19

20

24

28

V. Statistical Information Means, S.D's, F Ratios,

Experimental Girls Versus Control Girls •• 32

VI. Means and Standard Deviations, Girls Experimen­

tal Versus Girls Control • .

VII. Statistical Information Means, S.D's, F. Ratios,

Experimental Boys Versus Control Boys . . . VIII. Means and Standard Deviations, Boys Experimen-

tal Versus Boys Control

IX. Range of Raw Scores Per Test " . . . . .. X. Statistical Information Means, S.D's, F Ratios,

35

41

48

49

Experimental Girls Versus Experimental Boys. 51

XI. Statistical Information Means, S.D's, F Ratios,

Control Girls Versus Control Boys • 54

XII. Statistical Information Means S.D's F Ratios,

Experimental Girls Versus Control Boys. .• 57

XIII. Statistical Information Means S.D's F Ratios,

Control Girls Versus Experimental Boys. .. 59

XIV. Statistical Information Means S.D's F Ratios,

Total Control Versus Total Experimental.. 63

TABLE

xv.

XVI.

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Means and Standard Deviations, Total

Control versus Total Experimental •

Range of Raw Scores Per Test

vii

PAGE

65

66

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1. Girls Experimental Group and National Norms •• 37

2. Girls Control Group and National Norms. . . . 39

3. Boys Control Group and National Norms . 44

4. Boys Experimental Group and National Norms. . 46

ix

APPENDIX

PAGE

APfENDIX A. Means and Standard Deviations,

Girls Control Versus Boys Control 87

APPENDIX B. Means and Standard Deviations,

Girls Experimental Versus Boys

Experimental • • • • • •

APPENDIX C. Sutcliffe and Canham Tests •

• 88

• 89

APPENDIX D. Brown Comparative Study of Motor Fitness

Tests. • • • • • • • ••• 90

APPENDIX E. Summary of Motor Fitness Batteries • • • 92

APPENDIX F. Score Sheet for Each Subjèct • •• . 94

CHAPTER l

INTRODUCTION

In Canada, each of the ten provinces has complete jurisdiction over public (tax-supported) education within the province ••••• Extensive immigration, along with the extremely high Canadian birth rate, has multiplied educational inadequacies in spite of the fact that hundreds of new schools are built each year, and teacher recruitment is at aIl times high. When examined in respect to provision for physical educa­tion, the inadequacies are startling ••••• some classes have no physical education whatever and others are limited to one brief period per week ••••• limited out­door facilities discourage general participation ••••• while aIl provinces include physical education on their courses of study, it is frequently on a permis­sive basis only. Several provinces make no provision beyond grade 10 in the secondary school. These two factors, added to the lack of grants for capital con­struction, make it difficult to secure either adequate facilities for aIl the pupils or sufficient time allotment to achieve limited mi~imum goals with even average success. (70:4)

In these words the Duke of Edinburgh set the

challenge for Canadian society. Physical education must

provide youth with the ability to maintain a sound body

and to strive for the optimum in one's potential.

A great deal has been written about the benefits

of exercise to the human body. In an early study by

Cureton involving 1000 male university students, he

pointed out the deficiencies existing for basic physical

skills. Fourteen per cent were classified as "soft,

flabby, with undeveloped physiques", 24 per cent could

not jump an obstacle waist high, 26 per cent could not

chin themselves five times, ~2 per cent could not "skin

the catH, 64 per cent could not swim 50 yards. This

presented a very tragic picture of society at the time.

As a possible reason for these results Cureton offered:

Physical training programs are not compensating rapidly enough for urbanization, indoor work, dependence on mot or vehicles, and lack of necessity of hard physical work in youth. (24)

Kahn (56) claimed man 1s an active animal who

2

needs activity and exercise to survive our modern way of

life. "The principle of exercise is valid for man: the

body attains and retains the maximum development of its

capacities only by continued judicious exercise."

Exercise contributes greatly to the physical well­

being of aIl people. According to Hein and Ryan (36),

exercise inhibits vascular degeneration of heart disease

if maintained at a high level throughout life. They

added that exercise affects youthful appearance and

probably contributes to longevity. In short, it enables

the body to meet the emergencies of life without fear of

organic breakdown.

Steinhaus (67), in his summary of a colloquium on

exercise and fitness, stated in part that exercise could

tone the body muscles, reduce nervous tension, promote

sleep without the use of drugs, contrél obesity caused'

by luxurious living and eating habits, have a favorable

effect on the psyche of an individual and certainly aid

in heart function.

3

One of the problems facing Many Canadians is the

apparent lack of demand placed upon man's body systems.

People in general, failing to recognize their body needs,

do not meet daily minimums of exercise, preferring

instead the easy means of existence. Elevators, pills,

alcohol, drugs, propaganda of an affluent society all

program one's mind and body into passivity or inactivity.

A recent publication of the Royal Bank of Canada

claimed that Canadians sit too much. In the opinion of

the author, the "law of use" proves beyond doubt the

worth of exercise.

Physical fitness should aim higher than 'freedom of disease' ••••• Ability to fill one's place as an active member of society, without fatigue and with an energy reserve to meet unexpected stresses. (37)

The need for exercise is apparent in our present

society. Nash (55) listed automation and Medical advan­

ces as chief causes of leisure time. Man cannot purchase

peace of mind nor fitness for life, even though this

seemed to be the case after perusing the sales of pills

in America during one year: 45,000,000 aspirin pills

per day; 20,000,000 sleeping pills per day; 20,000,000

wakeup pills per day; 40,000,000 tranquilizers per day.

Nash continued to describe the n~ed for exercise and

~hallenge in order to make the most of this new-found

freedom from job responsibilities. nIt is in struggle

that man has always been spurred to significant action".

Physical fitness, as reported by Osborne (57:11), is:

that state which characterizes the degree to which a person is able to function. It implies the ability of each person to live most éffectively within.his potentialities. Ability to function depends uPQ~ the physical, mental, emotional, social and spiritual components of fitness, all of which are related to each other and are mutually interdependent.

T.K. Cureton, writing about the progression of

fitness through each grade level in school, expressed

an urgent appeal for physical fitness of today's youth.

A fitness program (30 minutes daily) develops more than strength and endurance. It demands determination, courage, and confidence aIl the time, and more and more of'these qualities as time goes along. (23:21)

One could claim that a struggle exists in today's

schools, particularly at the elementary level. Children

must be presented with the challenge to upgrade their

fitness for life. Can existing facilities, personnel

and time allotment meet this challenge? Does the present

physical education program significantly affect the motor

fitness of elementary school children? This struggle is

5

a daily one, for "every teacher effort to increase the

quantity and quality of human life is fitness education".

(66:5)

In summary the Duke of Edinburgh added:

Obviously the first thing is to see to it that aIl children from an early age are given regular physical instruction by properly qualified teachers. That, and an adequate provision of facilities for physical recreation, are absolutely essential re­quirements in preventing sub-health although they are not enough by themselves. (70: 7 )

It was the purpose of this study to investigate

the effect of increased time allotment on the motor fit-

ness of public school pupils.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

It was the purpose of this research to study the

effects of two and four periods of physical education

on the motor fitness of grade VI boys and girls over a

ten week periode

HYPOTHESES

(1) It was hypothesized that those boys and girls who

engaged in two periods of physical education per week

would show significant improvement in motor fitness

over a ten.·week periode

(2) It was hypothesized that those boys and girls who

participated in four periods of physical education per

6

week would show significant improvement in motor fitness

over those who participated in two periods per week over

a ten week periode

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Motor fitness. This involves the ability of the

body to perform a given task. The following serves as a

definition of motor fitness as it was used in this study.

"Motor fitness is a limited phase of motor ability,

emphasizing capacity for vigorous work." (50:92)

Physical fitness. Although much controversy exists

-:;- as to the precise meaning of this phrase (14-, 17, 23, 32,

37, 50, 56, 57, 66), there is common agreement regarding

its general meaning. Clarke's definition has been accep-

ted.

An individual is considered physica11y fit when his capacity for performance and endurance in physi­cal activities is great: when it is equal to his own potentiality. (17:15)

Time allotment. This term refers to the amount of

time allocated to physical education in the schools.

Throughout this study a single period comprised 30 minutes.

Unloaded program. This term refers to a normal

physical education program in which no attempt has been

made to weight the program in order to yie1d specifie

results over the 10 week periode

7

Two track school. This term refers to a school in

which two classes exist per grade level. For example,

class A and B are the only grade VI classes in school C.

LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

1. The gymnasia size and equipment available have result­

ed in sorne modifications in the battery of motor fitness

tests as described in Chapter III.

2. No attempt has been made to control the subject's after­

school life with regard to such factors as diet, sleep,

and amount and type of outside activities.

3. Administrative procedures and teaching schedules in

schools did not allow for exact uniformity in the test

schedule. For example, it was not possible to strictly

control the time of day each subject was tested and re­

tested.

4. Four two-track schools were used in the study. It was

not possible to randomly select schools or classrooms

from a large number of schools due to the limited size of

the school board.

5. The regular physical education personnel assigned to

the schools were used in this study. This resulted in

three different teachers in the four schools in which the

testing was conducted.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

STUDIES AT THE COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOLLEVELS

Little research has been done using time allot­

ment for regular physical education classes at the

college and high school levels. Most studies centre

around the effect of different types of program on the

fitness of individuals. Wilbur (78) used Cozens'

battery to evaluate the sports content method as oppo­

sed to-the apparatus content method of teaching physi­

cal education. He found the former superior for improv­

ing physical fitness but, overall, both methods contri­

buted to the various areas as measured by Cozens' test

battery. Using college men, Bookwalter (la) discovered

that five periods of physical education per week for

five months had a substantial effect on measures of

motor ability, agi lit y, power and speed. Blesh and

Scholz (8) revealed similar results for agility and

coordination providing emphasis was placed on these

areas during physical education classes for college

freshmen. Cureton (22), after one year of study with

college men, found improvement in jumping ability as a

result of participating in regular physical education

9

classes. Landis.s (45), making use of the Larson test

of motor ability and the AAF-PFR test of physical fit­

ness, established that tumbling and gymnastics had sub­

stantial effects upon results measured in the two tests.

Evaluating the effect of quality and non-quality physi­

cal education programs in New York State it was conclud­

ed that pupils improved their physical fitness rating

if they were participating in a quality physical educa­

tion program (61). By comparing boys in a physical

education program to boys in inter-school athletics,

Danielson (25) obtained significant results for the

latter in the 100 yard dash, the Illinois Agility Run

and the vertical jump.

To determine the effect of the physical education

program on the fitness of college freshmen Wipper (79)

furnished evidence that the program contributed very

little. He studied freshmen in the Physical Education

major course and freshmen taking regular college classes

for a five month periode Hemeasured four factors by

means of 12 tests. The mortality rate of the subjects

was high in both groups thus leaving his results open

to sorne question. His conclusion, however, warrants

sorne consideration for this study.

By adding power exercises to the regular

la

physical education program, MacIntosh (49) proved that

this addition had no effect on thephysical efficiency

of grade X boys over a 14 week periode The results ob­

tained, however, applied only to one isolated school.

In advocating more time for physical education

in an effort to improve existing levels of physical

fitness, Widdop recommended at least two periods of

physical education plus one games period per week.

One period of physical" education ranging from 30 minutes to 80 minutes per week is insufficient for producing a reasonable degree of fitness and a desi­rable proficiency in games skills. (75:19)

STUDIES AT THE ELEMENTARY LEVEL

Research at this level focuses on the relative

effect of age and sex difference on motor performance.

It may be concluded that ability increases with age and

that, except for strength, girls are generally better

than boys in most tests employed.

Espenschade (26) found that improvement in gross

motor performance is closely related to physical growth

which, in turn, undergoes marked changes in rate near

puberty. In his longitudinal study, Jones (41) confirmed

these findings in that, in boys and girls, post-pubescents

are stronger than pre-pubescents at the same ages.

1

~

Il

Seils (64) discovered higher mean gross motor

performance test scores and higher mean growth measures

among both sexes at successive grade levels in his re­

search on primary grade school children. Kane and

Meredith (42), in studying children at the seven, nine

and eleven year levels of age, concluded that boys had

higher mean scores in standing broad jump than girls.

Also, there seemed to be an increase in sex difference

at the ninth and eleventh year levels.

Latchow (48), in her study of fourth, fifth and

sixth grade pupils on selected motor skills, obtained,

for the most part, mean scores significantly higher

from grade to grade for each sex in each test item.

Govatos (33), in testing 101 six to eleven year old

children, furnished evidence showing increases in mean

motor performance for boys and girls as age increased.

Differences in motor performance between the sexes was

evidenced at the same age levels. He concluded that a

high positive correlation existed between growth aspects

and motor ski Ils in boys and girls. His results showed

boys superior to girls in strength and endurance but the

girls superior in explosive strength as evidenced in

the jump and reach and 25 yard dash tests.

Cron and Pronko (19) studied balance in school

--:;'

12

children and confirmed Jenkins' (39) findings that girls

are better than boys in the age gap of four to eight

years. They implied that balance improves with age from

four to six years and again from eleven to twelve years

while a slight decline is evident from twelve to fifteen.

In a pilot study, Torpey (72) used Clarke's cable tension

test on ~50 pupils. He revealed that means and standard

deviations show a steady increase with grade level. For

each grade, boys' means were higher than girls' in the

strength factor.

It is interesting to note that growth undergoes

seasonal changes. According to the Jones'study,

Among both boys and girls, gains were found to be greater in the spring th an in the fall months, with a maximum rate of growth in April and a minimum in Octo­ber. Differences between these two months were signi­ficant for girls' at the one per cent level, for boys at the three per cent level. (~1:172)

From this it would appear that to avoid growth differences

as factors in research studies dealing with fitness, one

would be on safer ground to undertake such research dur-

ing the fall months.

In this sampling of research at the elementary

level emphasis has been placed on motor ability and per-

formance and refers to changes occurring at various age

levels. They presented valuable knowledge concerning

young childrens' performance norms for various tests

13

and shed considerable light on growth patterns of boys

and girls. The studies of Jones (41) and Espenschade (26)

are particularly prominent in this latter field of research.

STUDIES DlRECTLYRELATED TO THISRESEARCH

Of the::.: studies performed at the elementary school

level, relatively few stressed the effect of program on

the fitness of pupils. It was the purpose of this study

to isolate the normal, unloaded program and determine its

effect on the motor fitness of the subjects contained

therein. The well-balanced program, designed to contri­

bute to the total development of an individual, must be

considered when research is done in order to determine

how motor fitness may be"stbe achieved. A loaded program

can achieve results for motor fitness but it leaves

unanswered the question as to what extent motor fitness"

can be achieved through a balanced program. Little

research can be found to answer this question. The

studies mentioned below have some implications for this

study.

Whittle (74) contrasted 12 year old boys in good

and poor physical education programs. He obtained signi­

ficant differences between the two types of programs,

with the former being the superior. Little or no mention,

however, was given to the size of the school, content of

the program, and effects. of growth on the results ob­

tained.

Using the Athletic Badge tests as a basis for

14

measuring the results of training in the physical edu­

cation program, Barry (6) found gains from September to

June, concluding that the 526 boya in grades VII and VIII

had goals to aim for and as a result strived to achieve

these levels set in the Badge tests. Garland (31) sought

to evaluate the effect of participation in a regularly

scheduled physical education class upon the boys athletic

performance. He used the YMCA Athletic Achievement tests

to measure improvement in the 66 elementary school boys.

His results showed that regularly scheduled physical

education had a positive contribution to make to the

athletic performance of the boys. Widdop (77), in his

study of mentally retarded children, reported that boys

and girls who had a regular weekly physical education

pro gram of at least 60 minutes showed significantly

higher scores on the A.A.H.P.E.R. test battery than did

children who had no physical education program.

Taddanio's (71) evidence showed that a daily 15 minute

calisthenic program had no significant effect on the

physical fitness of grade V boys and girls. In this

four month study, his control group had no physical

education.

,'".

15

The study of Sutcliffe and Canham (68) most nearly

approximated the design of this study. They compared

boys from two grades who had two periods of physical edu­

cation per week with boys from one grade who had a daily

period of physical education. They tested physique,

suppleness, strength, athletic ability, posture and

reaction time. Results showed a significant increase in

strength and increased suppleness for the group having

one period of physical ed~cation per day. This experi­

ment was conducted in only one school and nomment ion was

given of the program content. This investigator felt

that with a different battery of tests more significant

results might have been obtained.

Evidence discovered by Aàamson (2) indicated

significant results for a class that had three periods of

physical education in addition to a 30 minute loaded

period per week for one month. He compared this group to

one which had only three periods per week and found that

the fitne~s of 1~-15 year old boys was improved by the

former. Adamson's results must be accepted with reserv­

ations since only 12 boys were used in each group and only

one school was used in the study.

In research completed by Rath (62), significant

results were obtained for the group having more physical

16

education periods per week. Rath used a control group

in four schools, a basic control group in three schools

and a test group in five schools. These three groups

had a different program of strength development. They

each had five 40 minute periods per weék, one of which

was devoted to health teaching. The control group had

a normal physical education program; the basic control

group had a program of military tactics; and the test

group was given a definite program of exercise. His

results summarized much of the research done in the area

or program content and its effect on the motor fitness

of the subjects.

1. The quantity and kind of activities compri­sing a program determine its value for physical development.

2. A program planned to achieve specific re­sults can produce a strong, efficient body.

3. Greater physical development is achieved by the test group having an overload program.

4. A uniform program for aIl high schools planned for specific results seems to be desirable. (62:177)

SUMMARY

The research discussed indicated findings to

date in the area of the loaded program and physical edu­

cation time allotment. Program content evidently is a

major factor in determining motor fitness levels. The

existence of a program on a regular basis also seems to

17

affect any results obtained. However, Taddanio's (71)

findings contradict this assumption by claiming no signi­

ficant differences between a regular program and no program.

It may be that calisthenics do not provide enough motiva­

tion and effort so that the benefit from exercise may be

realized. Other studies are confined to a small sample

in a single school and thus the results must be taken with

reservations. Rath's study (62) came closest to this study

by using several schools with several different types of

program. He provided valuable information regarding the

effects of loaded programs as compared with normal unloaded

programs.

There seems to be a definite need to study the

effect of regular physical education program (unloaded)

on the motor fitness of the subjects involved at the

elementary level, when the number of periods per week is

varied.

;:-,'.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES

DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE

The boys and girls in this study were drawn from a

Protestant, English-speaking suburban region of Greater

Montreal. By socio-economic standards, the sample may be

classified as middle and upper middle class (73). The

subjects were pupils drawn from grade VI of four double

track elementary schools.

The age range of the sample was from Il to 12! years.

At the outset, 201 subjects were available from eight

classes within these four schools. Of this total, 91

were female and 110 were male. AlI but six subjects

participated in the pretest administration, thus 195

subjects entered the study. Due to absenteeism, injury

and so on, the sample was reduced to 168.

By means of random sampling techniques (12:169),

two groups of subj ects were selected as follow's:

Sex

Bo s

Girls

Total

TABLE l

SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE

CONTROL EXPERIMENTAL

Populatl.on from Populatl.on fram which sample was which sample was drawn. Sarnle drawn.

5q 30 qO

q2 30 32

9:6 :6-0 7-2

Sam le

30

30

60

N equals 120 drawn from total population of 168 sUbjects.

Of the original total approximately 13 per cent

were dropped from the study due to absenteeism, injury

19

or transfer. Alternate subjects were chosen by randcm­

izing techniques to substitute for those dropped fram the

study. Prior to the study it was arbitrarily decided that

if a subject was absent for more than 20 per cent of the

periods he or she would be dropped from the study. In

addition, subjects not present on the days of testing

were also classed as absentees because no time was available

for retests.

The school board, which agreed to promote the

research, had jurisdiction over six elementary schools,

four of which were two-track schools, the other two being

single track. The four double track schools were selected

20

for this study using the following criteria.

1. Socio-economicfactors. Of the four schools

two were located in a predominantly middle class community

while the other two served an upper middle class area.

One school from each of the two socio-economic are as was

selected for each group.

2. The cUrriculum. One school was involved in a

new approach to team teaching at some of its grade levels

and another used the ungraded system. At the request of

the board of principals, these two schools were placed in

the control treatment. The remaining two schools had ful­

filled criterion #1 above. In addition they had regular

graded systems with no timetabling problems. For these

reasons they were assigned to the experimental group.

3. Instructors. Three physical education teachers,

who by school board assignment, were used in this study.

Table II illustrates the teaching assignments of these

teachers.

TABLE II

ALLOCATION OF TEACHERS TO SCHOOLS

CONTROL SCHOOLS EXPERIMENTAL SCHOOLS School A

Teacher #1

School B

Teacher #2 Teacher #3 (part-time)

School C School D

Teacher #1 Teacher #2

21

All schools used were built using the same basic

architectural plans. Each school had almost identical

gymnasium dimensions, equipment available and construction

materials. For example, all gymnasia had tile flooring,

stall bars, ropes and travelling rings.

At the out set all school principals agreed to spon­

sor the research under conditions that would reduce, as

much as possible, variables which might weaken the re­

search design. All classes received 30 minutes of actual

"floor time". The changing of clothes before and after

the les sons was handled by the classroom teacher.

In order to prevent a "halo effectIf entering the

results, teachers involved in the study were told that

the research dealt with a test battery evaluation. They

had no indication that the study was to deal with time

allotment effects upon the motor fitness of the subjects

used.

There was no attempt to load the physical education

programs in favor of the test battery. Each school had

its program outlined prior to the start of school in

September. All schools followed the same basic course

of study in physical education so that little variation

from school to school existed in the program during the

10 week treatment periode Similar rhythmics,

22

calisthenics and low organized games were used as "warmup"

and "tapering-off" activities for each gym lesson. The

main body of the les son consisted of soccer during Sept­

ember and October, volleyball during October and November,

gymnastics and basketball during November and December.

Instruction in these areas was begun at similar times in

each school although some minor variation in when each'

area was introduced did exist amongst the four schools.

In summary, no program placed emphasis on a certain area

of the body for purposes of improving scores on the tests

or competing against the other schools for higher averages.

DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT

In the measurement of motor fitness there has been

lack of general agreement among researchers as to the basic

components comprising motor fitness.

In the selection of a suitable battery of motor

fi tness tests, factor an.alysis is a technique that has been

used to isolate various motor fitness factors. Once an

appropriate selection of factors has been achieved one may

form a battery which will measure, by the best test available,

the factors inherent in motor fitness. Several authors,

(5, 20, 51, 60), have used factor analysis to isolate fit­

ness factors. The work of Brown (13) summarized much of

the research based on this technique.

23

E.A. Fleishman (29) has re-examined all previous

research in the field of motor fitness and has, by means

of factor analysis, isolated nine factors. In his identi-

fication of specifi~ motor fitness factors he claimed to

have isolated nine tests, one for each factor, which best

measure the components of motor fitness.

Fleishman termed his battery "basic fitness tests"

and his own definition of fitness, which is similar to

Matthews', "the functional capacity of individuals to

perform certain kinds of tasks requiring muscular acti-

vit y" (29:154) has been followed throughout this study.

In Fleishman' s discus·sion of the use of a battery of

tests that will measure specifically what they are inten­

ded to measure he made the following observation regarding

the AAHPER tests:

A fitness battery cannot be evaluated solely in terms of individual tests; rather, the key issues are the comprehensiveness and efficiency of the tests lias a battery". According to these criteria, the seven AAHPER tests measure well only three factors.

(29:150)

In Table III, his nine factors and tests are

presented along with their reliabilities and primary

'" ~.:~.<;,

- '~L.,

-,~ _:.';: ::':',-'

:·~:.~~3 . ~:;-~

··~:·i:,· ":0

.~ .:.':.~

+ ... --~-

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

9 •

TABLE III

RELIABILITIES AND FACTOR LOADINGS

OF FLEISHMAN BATTERY OF TESTS

PRIMARY FACTOR Relia-MEASURED TEST bilit:~l

Extent Flexibility Twist and Touch .90 Dynamic Flexibility Bend,twist,touch .92 Explosive strength Shuttle run .85 Static strength Handgrip .91 Dynamic strength Pullups .93 Trunk strength Leg lifts .89 Gross Body co-ordination Cable Jump .70

Gross Body equili-brium Balance A .82

Stamina (cardio-vascular endur-ance) 600 yd.Run-Walk .80

24

primary Other Factor Factor Loading Loading

.49

.50

.77 .39(DS)

.72

.81

.47 .32 (DS)

.56

.72

Fleishman described each of the primary factors as

follows: (29:129-131)

Extent Flexibility. Ability to flex or stretch the trunk as far as possible in either a forward, lateral or backward direction.

Dynamic Flexibility. The ability to make repeated, rapid flexing movements in which the resilency of the muscles in recovery from strain or distortion is criti­cal.

Explosive Strength. The ability to exp end a maximum of energy in one or a series of explosive acts. This factor is distinguished from other strength factors in requiring mobilization of energy for a burst of effort, rather than continuous strain, stress, or repeated exertion of muscles.

Static Stren'g'th. The maximum force which a subj ect can exert, even for a brief period, where the force is exerted continuously up to this maximum.

25

Dynami"c Strength. The ability to exert muscular force repeatedly or continuously over a period of time. It represents muscular endurance anà emphasi­zes the resistance of the muscles to fatigue.

Trunk Strength. This is a second, more limited, dynamic strength factor specifie to trunk muscles, particularly the abdominal muscles.

Gross Body Coordi"nation. Ability to coordinate the simultaneous actions of different parts of the body while making gross body movements.

Gross Body Equilibrium. The ability of an indivi-" dual to maintain his equilibrium despite forces pulling him off balance, where he has to depend mainly on non­visual (e.g., vestibular and kinesthetic) cues.

Stamina. The capacity to continue maximum effort, requiring prolonged exertion over time.

This investigator conducted a pilot study during

.;,' fall and winter months in facili ties that did not meet

with Fleishman's standards. In addition, this study re­

,,',;id,:;~,: vealed the fact that very few 11 and 12 year old boys or • \'.~;J

, ~\ ... \~l.

; girls could perform a single pullup. As a result the .:~

,~,ft~\!,:}, dynamic str'ength factor test was replaced by the bent arm

}!J~~ ::::a:S

; :ct::i:o::::g h:: ~ 7 :~li;:i:::Y f:: t · ::a:n: :etter

';<'"i,tr distribution of scores could be obtained by the substitu­

.• )'H?l,tion of this test. The gymnasia used failed to have the

.' '':L'?{'required length for the shuttle run test which measures

"::\jexplosive strength. The standing broad jump was substitu­

.. }~~:ted on the bas is of i ts re liabi li ty of . 90 and primary .:;i;·"~,:;factor loading of .35.

~ ,.,:-, ·f.~t·:~~:;: ..... /

. " ".: ~',.z. ~:~"': In the case of the handgrip test, two Narragansett

)~(li;hand dynanometers were validated on subjects in another , .. ~;>;-~.~.'

±<!~school prior to the pre-test and post-test.

26

The 600 yard run-walk test was not judged suitable

for children aged 11 and 12 years, due to the strain put

on the cardio-respiratory system. Green (3~), who review­

ed the effect of prolonged endurance exercise, found that

work capa city in pre-pubescent children was minimal. The

results of studies by several well-known researchers

Robinson (63), Adams (1), Bengtsson (7), Ostrand (58),

Cumming and Cumming (21) are summarized by a quotation

from Moorhouse and Miller,"children under 12 years of age

possess a highly active sympathetic nervous system which

predisposes to a high heart rate and an easily depleted

capacity for endurance activities such as running." (5~)

These physiologists went on to say that children do not

have the capacity to utilize oxygen because of a smaller

stroke volume of heart and, consequently, smaller capacity

for increased circulation of blood through the lungs. They

also possess a lesser supply of carbohydrate fuel. In

light of this evidence it therefore seemed advisable to

substitute the 300 yard rune

In order to classify the subjects used in the study,

age was taken as the means by which this would be accom­

plished. Latchow (~8), Gross and Casciani (35), as weIl as

Espenschade (27) pointed out the effectiveness and benefits

of using age only for classification purposes. Espenschade

27

claimed:

The use of age alone as a basis for the develop­ment of test norms is recommended. Although a com­bination of age, height and weight has a somewhat higher predictive value than age al one in a few tests at severa1 age levels for boys, the amount of improve­ment is not sufficient to justify the labor invo1ved. (27:152)

In addition, studies by several recognized authors,

Bookwa1ter (11), Cearley (16), H.H. Clarke and Carter (18),

Seymour (65), H.H. Clarke (17), McCloy (51), Nielson and

Cozens (50:128) and Zimmerman (81), who explored the area

of classification, are noted as evidence i11ustrating re­

search in this area.

PROCEDURE

As a result of the pilot study completed on 21

boys and girls several months prior to this study it was

conc1uded that it was too exhausting to expect subjects

to undergo the nine item battery in one periode It was

therefore decided to divide the battery into two parts

and to administer them on a1ternate days. The fo110wing

schedule was drawn up in an attempt to ensure the best

measure of each item:

Schedule for Administering the Battery

First Day Second Day

1. Handgrip 1. Standing broad jump 2. Bent arm hang 2. Leg lifts 3. Cable j ump 3. Balance A 4. Twist and touch 4. Bend, twist and touch 5. 300 yard l'un

28

The same procedure was followed for both the pre­

test and post-test with one day of l'est between the first

and second day of testing.

First Da:i Tirile Monday

8:45 Girls 9:35 (Exper)

SCHOOL D

9:35 10:25

10:30 Girls 11:20 (Exper)

SCHOOLC

1:05 Boys 2:05 (Cont)

SCHOOL A

2:25 Girls 3:15 (Cont)

SCHOOL A

TABLE IV

TEST SCHEDULE

First Da:i Tuesday

Boys (Exper)

SCHOOL D

Boys (Exper)

SCHOOL C

Girls (Cont)

SCHOOL B

Boys (Cont)

SCHOOL B

Second Da:i Second Da:i Wedn'esday Thursday

Boys Girls (Cont) (Cont)

SCHOOL A SCHOOL B

Girls (Cont)

SCHOOL A

Girls Boys ((E;Kper) (Exper)

SCHOOL C SCHOOL C

Girls Boys (Exper) rExper) SCHOOL D SCHOOL D

Boys (Cont)

SCHOOL B

A certified physical education teacher was trained as

a test assistant prior to the pre-test in order to facilitate

the gathering of data. The tests themselves were administer­

ed in identical order with identical format of description,

demonstration and trial. One test administrator was used

fol' this purpose. Each testing visit was preceded by a

brief warmup period fol' all subjects containing identical

29

exercises, performed in a predetermined order.

All groups of subjects took the pre-test admini-

stration on Day One in 45 to 50 minutes ~,d the Day Two

administration in 30 to 35 minutes. One exception to the

above uccurred during the pre-test administration on the

control boys in schools A and B. The classes contained

between 35 and 40 boys and as a result only four tests

were completed during that periode On the second day,

the omitted test (300 yard run) was administered along

with the scheduled four tests for a period of 45 minutes.

The total testing time for each pre- and post-test admini­

stration was therefore 90 to 100 minutes.

The procedure used for each test item was identical

to Fleishman's instructions (28) with the exception of the

bent arm hang, standing broad jump and the 300 yard rune

The former two followed the description in the C.A.H.P.E.R

Manual (69). The endurance run was performed by running

around the gymnasia for seven laps, each lap totalling

48 yards. It was found in the pilot study that certain

modifications in procedure could be adopted for sorne tests.

The bent arm hang was administered to two subjects at a

time with one stopwatch per subject on stall bars. The

cable jump was performed by dividing the class into groups

of four. Four or five subjects performed at the same

time, one from each of the groups. In the and

, : -.'

30

touch test the procedure followed was similar to that for

the bent arm hang. With the leg lift test four subjects

were assigned to each mat while four other subjects served

as counters. The two administrators spot checked the

counts of those acting as counters. The physical education.

teachers on dut Y at that time also assisted with the spot

checks on counters. The endurance run involved had four

runners at one time. There was ample floor space on the

circuit to allow this many to run without difficulty.

Administrators timed and recorded as each crossed the

finish line. In the remaining four tests only one subject

performed at a time.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The technique of analysis of covariance was used

in comparing the data. An I.B.M. 1620 Computer, located

at the Macdonald College Computing Centre, was employed

to compute the data.

EXPERIMENTAL GIRLS VERSUS CONTROL GIRLS

The experimental group improved in two tests,

regressed in one, and showed no improvement in six out

of the total of nine tests. Reference to Table V reveals

that improvement was noted in the leg lifts test where an

F ratio of 4.08 was obtained, and in the bend, twist and

touch test where an F ratio of 3.41 was obtained. This

group showed a marked regression in the bent arm test as

illustrated by an F ratio of 2.02.

Over the 10 week treatment period, the control group

showed improvement in two tests. F ratios of 15.06 and 2.25

were attained in the bent arm hang, and the bend, twist and

touch tests respectively.

32

TABLE V

STATISTICAL INFORMATION MEANS, S.D.'s,F RATIOS.

EXPERIMENTAL GIRLS CONTROL GIRLS MEANS MEANS

Standing Broad JumE: Source DF MS Adj'.F

Pre-test 59.12 Group 1 33:22 1.13 Pre-test 60.97 Post-test 61.20 Within 57 29.32 Post-test 60.97 Adjusted 61.83 R.Sg. .46 Adjusted 60.33 F .97 F .02

HandgriE: Source DF MS Aël:j.r

Pre-test 41.00 Group 1 69:78 1.64 Pre-test 42.03 Post-test 43.83 Within 57 42.60 Post-test 42.23 Adjusted. 44.11 R.Sg. .33 Adjusted 41.95 F .23 F .62

Bent Arm Hang: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 18.67 Group 1 3440:-61 12.55** Pre-test 23.97 Post-test 14.98 Within 57 274.23 Post-test 33.48 Adjusted 16.53 R.Sg. .21 Adjusted 31.93 F 2.02 F 15.06**

Leg Lifts: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 18.47 Group l' 289:ti'2 12.54** Pre-test 21.00 Post-test 21.57 Within 57 23.09 Post-test 18.93 Adjusted 22.52 R.Sg. .37 Adjusted 17.98 F 4.08* F 2.88

Twist and Touch: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 19.57 Group "1 19:87 1.60 Pre-test 18.35 Post-test 21.62 Within 57 12.46 Post-test 22.23 Adjusted 21.34 R.Sg. .29 Adjusted 22.51 F .90 F .33

- aIl data has been rounded to the nearest hundredth

the source was for the final F ratio

* .. significant at .05 level

** .. significant at .01 level

" 1.:"

34

Statistical regression also occurred with this

group on the leg lifts test where an F ratio of 2.88

indicated a much poorer performance in the post-test

when compared with the pre-test.

The adjusted means indicated in Table VI pointed

out the respective gains and losses by experimental and

control groups on the bent arm hang and leg lifts tests.

The bend, twist and touch test indicated close

adjusted means but improvement was noted for the experi­

mental group on the basis of an F of 3.41, and the con­

trol group obtained an F of 2.22.

Differences between the groups were shown on

five tests. The figures in Table V indicated slight gain

on the part of the experimental group. A significant

difference existed for this latter group on the leg

lifts test only. Differences on the standing broad

jump, handgrip and twist and touch tests were signifi­

cant at the .30, .20 and .23 levels respectively. In

the bent arm hang the control group had a ratio of 12.55

indicating a significant difference between it and the

experimental group.

Figures land 2 graphically illustrated the gains

and losses of both groups on aIl nine tests. In addition

comparisons were made with Canadian and American norms on

these tests. It is of interest to note the above average

TABLE VI

GIRLS EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS GIRLS CONTROL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS

TEST

Standing Broad E Jump

'ë

Handgrip 'E

Sent Arm

Leg Lifts

Twist and Touch

Send-Twist-Touch

Cable Jump

Balance

Endurance

E •• Experimenta1

C •• Control

ë

E ë

E ë

E ë

E ë

E ë

E ë

E ë

PRE-TEST

Me'an S.D.

59.12 6.44 60.97 7.81

41.00 7.71 LJ2.03 8.67

18.67 13.07 23.97 15.29

18.LJ7 5.00 21.90 LJ.S4

19.57 LJ.S6 18.35 5.24

1LJ.LJ3 2.19 15.53 2.35

4.27 ,.77 4 .. 17 1.00

3.88 1.48 4.22 1.26

97.03 9.82 97.73 9.02

POST-TEST

Mean S.D.

61.20 6.39 60.97 7.95

43.83 8.97 42.23 6.3LJ

14.98 10.46 33.48 23.43

21.57 LJ.51 18.93 7.03

21.62 3.64 22.23 LJ.48

15.07 2.42 16.10 2.81

LJ.23 1.02 4.27 .85

LJ.51 1.2LJ LJ.5LJ 1.17

85.60 10.63 87.30 7.90

35

POST-TEST

Adjusted Means

61.83 60.33

44.11 LJ1.95

16.53 31.93

22.52 17.98

21.3LJ 22.51

15.28 15.88

LJ.22 LJ.28

4.53 4.52

85.70 87.20

-AlI data has been rounded to the nearest hundredth.

36

performance on a majority of the tests.

EXPERIMENTAL BOYS VERSUS CONTROL BOYS

In comparing these two groups on the nine tests no

significant differences were obtained. As illustrated in

Table VII sorne marked differences were obtained on the leg

lifts test, bend, twist and touch test, cable jump test

and the 300 yard run test but F-ratios for these tests were

relatively low, being mainly at the .10 to .20 levels.

The experimental group showed improvement in the

handgrip, bent arm hang, twist and touch and 300 yard run

tests. A regression in performance was noted on the leg

lifts test where the F ratio was 1.32, which indicated

significance at about the .25 level. The control group,

being virtually identical, came out with improvement on

the handgrip test, the twist and touch ~est, the bend,

twist and touch test, and the 300 yard rune Regression

was also noted, but very slightly, on the cable jump test.

The adjusted means and standard deviations presented

in Table VIII indicate considerable variance in several of

the tests. Using one-sixth of the range as an indication

of the adequacy of the standard deviation, Table IX clearly

pointed out the amount of variance which existed within the

boys' groups, considerably more than within the girls' groups.

17

I~~~~~~~~~~I

37

Standing broad jump (inches)

Bent arm hang (seconds)

Twist & Touch (inches) Cable Jump * 15 yr. olds. * 16-18 yr.olds.

Handgrip (lbs.pressure) *13 yr.olds.

Ft GU R E GIRLS EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

AND NATIONAL NORMS

- F

Leg Lifts * 13 yr.olds

} IL.L1//

Balance (seconds) * 13-18 yr. olds

Bend,twist,touch *15 yr.olds

300 yd.run (seconds)

FleURE GIRLS EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

CAHPER 50th Percentile 12 year old girls: C

Fleishman 50th Percentile(various ages): F

Experimental Girls PostTest Adjusted Mean------

*Means rounded off to nearest whole number.

38

Standing broad jump (inches)

Twist & Touch (inches) *15 yr.olds

Bent arm hang (seconds)

Cable jump * 16-18 yr.olds

Handgrip (lbs.pressure) * 13 yr. olds.

FIGURE 2 GIRLS CONTROL GROUP

AND NATIONAL NORMS

39

Leg lifts *13 yr.olds.

Balance (seconds) * 13-18 yr.olds

Bend,twist,touch *15 yr.olds

300 yd.run (seconds)

FIQURE

GIRLS CONTROL GROUP

CAHPER 50th Percentile 12 yr.old girls: C

Fleishman 50th PercentileWarious ages): F

Control Girls PostTest Adjusted Means :-----

* means rounded to nearest whole number.

40

':,;Pre-test .':Post-test >Adjusted

F

61.97 6~.37 6~.15

.07

q.9.~3

53.37 51.67

3.36

Bent Arm Hang:

Pre-test 31.23 Post-test 3~.96 Adjusted 32.~6

'F 2.92

Leg Lifts:

Pre-test 20.00 Post-test 18.~7 Adjusted 18.07 F 1.32

Twist and Touch:

Pre-test 20.98 Post-test 22.00' Adjusted 20.61 F 26.89**

TABLE VII

STATISTICAL INFORMATION MEANS, S.D.'s, F RATIOS

Source DF MS Adj.F Group 1" 17:""58 .~O Within 57 ~~.10 R.Sg. • 5~ -

Source DF MS Adj.F Group 1" 28O:-~5 .80 Within 57 351.58 R.Sg. .27

Source DF MS Adj.F Group 1 38760 1.18 Within 57 32.61 R.Sg. .18

Source OF MS Adj.F Group 1 3:"37 .13 Within 57 25.51 R.Sg. .15

~1

CONTROL BOYS MEANS

Pre-test Post-test Adjusted F

Pre-test Post-test Adjusted F

Pre-test Post-test Adjusted F

Pre-test Post-test Adjusted F

Pre-test Post-test Adjusted F

61.~7 6~.13 6~.35

:iOl

~~.77 ~8.87 50.56

3.21

23.80 3~.39 36.89

.01

18.16 19.30 19.69

.27

1~.28 19.80 21.18 2.~7

/,J2

TABLE VII (continued)

EXPERIMENTAL BOYS CONTROL BOYS MEANS MEANS

Bend 2Twist,Touch: Adj.F Source DF MS

Pre-test l5./,J6 Group 1" 14.""4- 9 2.86 Pre-test 15.50 Post-test 15./,J3 Within 57 5.06 Post-test 16./,J3 Adjusted 15./,J4- R.Sg. .31 Adjusted 16./,J2 F .00 r 2.08

Cable Jump: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test /,J.13 Group 1" 2.08 1.80 Pre-test /,J.07 Post-test 3.87 Within 57 1.16 Post-test 3./,J7 Adjusted 3.85 'R.Sg. .22 Adjusted 3./,J8 r .04 r 1.6/,J

Balance: Source Dr MS Adj.r

Pre-test /,J.12 Group 1" -.19 .O/,J Pre-test /,J.01 Post-test /,J.80 Within 57 4-.63 Post-test /,J.86 Adjusted /,J.78 R.Sg,. .09 Adjusted /,J.89 r .08 r .01

Endurance: Source Dr MS Adj.r

Pre-test 91.37 Group 1" L12 2.85< Pre-test 91.53 Post-test 84-.60 Within 57 39.21 Post-test 8/,J./,J0 Adjusted 84-.64- R.Sg. .39 Adjusted 8/,J.36 F 31.38** r 9/,J./,J5**

- aIl data has been rounded to the nearest hundredth

- the source is for the final r ratio

. * significant at .05 leve1

** significant at .01 1evel

In contrast to the girls, bath boys' groups did

not fare weIl by comparison with Canadian and American

nor.ms. As Figures 3 and 4 illustrate, the boys were

43

below nor.ms in more tests than the girls. However, it

must be taken into consideration that the Fleishman

averages were based on boys older than those in this study.

,. &O~~~~~~~~~~

'37

Standing broad jump (inches)

Handgrip (lbs.pressure *13 yr.o1ds.

3S~~~~~~~~~~ 20 -F

Bent arm hang (seconds) Leg lifts *14 yr.o1ds

Twist & Touch (inches) *13 yr.olds

F\GU RE 3 BOYS CONTROL GROUP

AND NATIONAL NORMS

44

Bend,twist,touch *14 yr.olds

g~~~~~~~~F S

Balance (seconds) *13-18 yr.olds

Cable jump ir15-18 yr.olds

300 yard run (s.econds

FleURES BOYS CONTROL GROUP

CAHPER 50th Percentile 12 yr. old Boys: C

Fleishman 50th Percentile(various ages}: F

Control Boys Post-Test Adjusted Means :----

* means rounded to nearest whole number.

45

6Lj. n."7-'-'·-' ~ • ...,.. "-.1"" GO~~~~~~~~~~

Standing broad jump (inches)

Handgrip (lbs~press re) ''(13 yr. olds

:20 """"''''''''''~....,...,.......,....,r-r~...,...-:;..-r'7'f

Bent Arm hang (seconds)

2.1 '""'?--"'""""7' ~~ r~"7

IS

Leg lifts *14 yr. olds.

11/ ~~~'--'-L...L...L...L.~"""",""",~ F

Twist & Touch (inches) *13 yr.olds

FIGURE 4-BOYS EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

AND NATIONAL NORMS

46

,

Bend,twist,touch *14 yr.olds

8~~~~~~~~F

S

Balance (seconds) *13-18 yr.olds

Cable jump ~':15-18 yr. olds

300 yd.run (seconds)

EIGURE 4 BOYS EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

CAHPER 50th Percentile 12 yr. old boys: C

Fleishman 50th Percentile(various ages): F

Experimental Boys PostTest adjusted means:-----

*means rounded to nearest whole number.

47

TABLE VIII

BOYS EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS BOYS CONTROL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS

TEST PRE-TEST POST-TEST

, Mean S.D. ' Mean S'. D.

Standing Broad Jump'~ 61.97 7.12 64.37 7.59

'C 61.47 7.74 64.13 8.25

Handgrip E 49.43 8.64 53.37 9.26 'ë 44.77 10.66 48.87 9.86

Bent Arm E 31.23 16.56 34.96 18.25 ë 23.80 16.54 34.39 24.15

Leg Lifts 'E 20.00 ~.47 18.47 6.28 C 18.16 6.63 19.30 6.02

Twist and Touch E 20.98 4.92 22.00 5.31 ë 14.28 4.92 19.80 5.34

Bend-Twist-Touch E 15.46 3.30 15.43 3.07

C 15.50 2.40 16.43 2.12

Cable Jump E 4.13 1.18 3.87 .88 ë 4.07 1. 50 3.47 1.43

Balance E 4.12 1.31 4.80 1.48 ë 4.01 1.58 4.86 2.73

Endurance E 91. 37 10.49 84.60 8.42 ë 91.53 Il.94 84.40 7.20

E •• Experimental

C •• Control

-48

POST-TEST Adjusted

Me'ans

64.15 64.35

51.67 50.56

32.46 36.89

18.07 19.69

20.Ys" 21. 8

15.44 16.42

3.85 3.48

4.78 4.89

84.64 84.36

aIl data has been rounded to the nearest hundredth.

· ........ _,-_.~. """""""-.......,.-----...

49

TABLE IX

RANGE OF RAW SCORES PER TEST

EX]2erimenta1 Control EXEerimental Control Girls Girls Boys Boys

Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post-test test test test test test test test

Standing Broad Jump 32 27* 35* 49 24* 32* 34* 37*

Handgrip 28* 34* 42* 32 38* 43* 44* 40*

Sent Arm . Hang 52* 49* 68* 76* 63* 61* 83* 92*

Leg ',.Lifts 22* 23 18* 28* 23* 2~* 24* 26*

'.,". "

'. "-';'"';-' ; -: '; "::~ ';,\;.Twist &

":':;>'~Touch 23 18 20* 22 18* 21 20* 22* ::; .. ;

;Bend,Twist & Touch 10 12 10 12 l~* 13* 9* 8*

Cable Jump 3 4 3 3 ~ 3 5 4

Balance 6 4 5 5 6 6 7 14

300 yard Run 48* 38* 33* 34* 36* 3~* ~2* 17*

* indicates standard deviation is above one-sixth of the range.

_ .. __ .. _-_.--._--- .. -._-_.-.-_. ~=_._=-==~=-==---. 1

50

EXPERIMENTAL GIRLS VERSUS EXPERIMENTAL BOYS

Girls showed, over the 10 week period, improvement in

the following tests as indicated by the F ratios in Table X:

standing broad jump, handgrip, leg lifts, twist and touch,

bend, twist and touch. Significant improvement was evident

in the handgrip test as opposed to a significant drop-off

in performance in the bent arm hang test. Other tests of

improvement are significant at levels between .10 and .25.

Boys, on the other hand, improved in only three

tests; standing broad jump, handgrip, bent arm hang, all

of which are strength tests. Significant improvement was

noted in two of the tests. A slight decline was evident in

the cable jump test and significant regression was noted

in the leg lifts test.

Comparisons between these two groups showed differ­

ences in favour of the girls over the boys in leg lifts

and cable jump, the former being a significant ratio,

and the latter being significant at about the .25 level.

The boys, on the other hand, displayed superior gains over

the girls in handgrip, and bent arm hang only, the former

being significant at approximately the .10 level and the

latter being significant at the .ûl level.

51 TABLE X

STATISTICAL INFORMATION MEANS, S.D.'s, F RATIOS

EXPERIMENTAL GIRLS EXPERIMENTAL BOYS MEANS MEANS

Standin~ BroadJuni12:· Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 59.12 Group ,- 1r.71 • 6 3 Pre-test 61.97 Post-test 61.20 Within 57 26.43 Post-test 64.37 Adjusted 62.23 R.Sg·. .49 Adjusted 63.34 F 2.55 F 2.96

Handgri12: Source DF MS . Adj. F

Pre-test 41.00 Group ,- 89730 2.14 Pre-test 49.43 Post-test 43.83 Within 57 41.74 Post-test 53.37 Adjusted 47.23 R.Sg. .52 Adjusted 49.97 F 15.38** F 15.86**

Bent Arm Hang: Source DF Ms Adj.F

Pre-test 18.67 Group "1 2501.27 13.90** Pre-test 31.23 Post-test 14.98 Within 57 . 180.10 Post-test 34.96 Adjusted 17.96 R.Sg. .23 Adjusted 31.98 F 10.28** F 26.15**

Leg Lifts: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 18.47 Group ,- 19ii':""0 0 6.94* Pre-test 20.00 Post-test 21.57 Within 57 27.94 Post-test 18.47 Adjusted 21.83 R.Sg. .11 Adjusted 18.20 F 1.2lJ. F 4.66*

Twist and Touch: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 19.57 Group l" -.66 .04 Pre-test 20.98 Post-test 21.62 Within 57 17.67 Post-test 22.00 Adjusted 21.91 R.Sg. .19 Adjusted 21.70 F 1.29 F .10

TABLE X (continued) 52

EXPERIMENTAL GIRLS EXPERIMENTAL BOYS MEANS MEANS

Bend 2Twist zTouch: Source Dr MS Adj.r

Pre-test 14.43 Group l -.19 .03 Pre-test 15.46 Post-test 15.07 Within 57 6.27 Post-test 15.43 Adjusted 15.31 R.Sg. .22 Adjusted 15.29 r 1.97 r .25

Cable Jump: SoUrce Dr MS Adj.r

Pre-test 4.27 Group l L4l 1.87 Pre-test 4.13 Post-test 4.23 Within 57 .75 Post-test 3.87 Adjusted 4.20 R.Sg. .22 Adjusted 3.90 F .26 F 2.13

Balance: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 3.88 Group l -.87 .46 Pre-test· 4.12 Post-test 4.51 Within 57 1.90 Post-t~st 4.80 Adjusted 4.53 R.Sg. .04 Adjusted 4.77 F .45 F .64

Endurance: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 97.03 Group l Il.15 .13 Pre-test 91.37 Post-test 85.60 Within 57 84.59 Post-test 84.60 Adjusted 84.65 R.Sg. .13 Adjusted 85.55 F .05 F .16

aIl data has been rounded to the nearest hundredth.

the source is for the final F ratio.

* significant at .05 level

** significant at .01 level.

CONTROL GIRLS VERSUS CONTROL BOYS

The comparisons between tests performed by the

boy's and girl's control groups were similar to the

53

experimental groups. The girls, as indicated in Table XI,

showed improvement in two tests: the handgrip and the

twist and touch. The boys bettered the girls by having

improvement in three tests: the standing broad jump,

handgrip and twist and touch. The girls showed a definite .

drop in the leg lifts test and the boys indicated a signi­

ficant regression in the cable jump test.

Differences between the two groups was evident in

five tests. Significant superiority of boys over girls

was illustrated in the stand~ng broad jump and handgrip

tests. The F ratio of 3.08 in the leg lifts test was

significant for the boys at the .07 level. Girls indicated

a significant ratio in the cable jump as weIl as a ratio

of 3.22 in the 300 yard run which was significant at

approximately the .07 level.

5lJ. TABLE XI

STATISTICAL INFORMATION MEANS, S.D.'s, F RATIOS

CONTROL GIRLS CONTROL BOYS MEANS ME'ANS

Standing Broad JumE: SoUrce DF MS Ad'j'.'F.

Pre-test 60.97 Group "1 113.""96 4.25* Pre-test 61.47 Post-test 60.97 Within 57 26.54 Post-test 64.13 Adjusted 61.17 R.S'g. '.62 Adjusted 63.93 F .60 F 2.22

Handg'riE : , S'oUrce DF ' MS . Adj. F

Pre-test 42.03 Group -r 391.57 9.02** Pre-test lJ.4.77 Post-test 42.23 Within 57 43.43 Post-test 48.87 Adjusted 42.97 R.Sg'. .40 Adjusted 48.13 F 1.15 F 9;~29**

Bent Arm Hang: SoUrce DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 23.97 Group "1 16730 .04 Pre-test 23.80 Post-test 33.48 Within 57 435.49 Post-test 34.39 Adjusted 33.42 R.Sg. .27 Adjusted 34.46 F .00 F .02

Leg Lifts: Adj.F Source DF MS

Pre-test 21.00 Group- "1 83:"50 3.08 Pre-test 18.16 Post-test 18.93 Within 57 27.07 Post-test 19.30 Adjusted 17.90 R.Sg. .40 Adjusted 20.33 F 3.60 F .05

Twist and Touch: Source DF MS Adj. F.

Pre-test 18.35 Group "1 5:"lJ.3 .27 Pre-test 14.28 Post-test 22.23 Within 57 20.30 Post-test 19.80 Adjusted 21.34 R.Sg. .21 Adjusted 20.69 F 9.27** F 3.54

55 TABLE XI (continued)

CONTROL GIRLS CONTROL BOYS MËANS MEANS

BendzTwistzTouch: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 15.53 Group "1 1783 .35 Pre-test 15.50 Post-test 16.10 Within 57 5.24 Post-test 16.43 Adjusted 16.09 R.SSI· .20 Adjusted 16.44' F .00 F ~26

Cable Jump: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 4.17 Group l" 8:80 6.93* Pre-test 4.07 Post-test 4.27 Within 57 1.27 Post-test 3.47 Adjusted 4.25 R.SSI· .13 Adjusted 3.48 F .09 F 6.68*

Balance: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 4.22 Group l" 2:43 .56 Pre-test 4.01 Post-test 4.54 Within 57 4.30 Post-test 4.86 Adjusted 4.50 R.SSI· .07 Adjusted 4.90 F .31 F .34

Endurance: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 97.73 Group l" 1:27 3.22 Pre-test 91.53 Post-test 87.30 Within 57 39.49 Post-test 84.40 Adjusted 86.00 R.SSI· .34 Adjusted 85.70 F .05 F .02

- aIl data has been rounded to the nearest hundredth.

- the source is for the final F ratio.

* significant at .05 level.

** significant at .01 level.

1

56

OTHER COMPARIS'ONS

The data was analysed comparing control boys with

experimental girls to determine any further pertinent sex,

as weIl as time allotment,differences. Control boys show­

ed a significant difference compared with experimental

girls in the bent arm hang. The girls, as in other compari­

sons, showed superiority in the cable jump test where a

significant ratio was obtained. F ratios of 3.54, 3.15 and

3.45 on leg lifts, bend, twist and touch and 300 yard run

tests respectively, indicated a marked difference in favor

of the boys. These ratios were significant at approximately

the .07 level.

In another study the experimental boys surpassed

the control girls with significant F ratios in the standing

broad jump and handgrip tests. The girls, again, showed

superiority in the cable jump test although the F ratio

was only significant at the .06 level. By reference to

Tables XII and XIII it may be seen that the F ratios pointed

out the above mentioned differences between boys and girls.

57

TABLE XII

STATISTICAL INFORMATION MEANS, S.O.'s, F RATIOS

EXPERIMENTAL GIRLS CONTROL BOYS MEANS MEANS

Standing Broad Jum§:· ource OF . MS - Adj.F

Pre-test 59.12 Group 1 "'22:"94 .77 Pre-test 61.47 Post-test 61.20 Within 57 29.92 Post-test 64.13 Adjusted 62.04 R.Sg. .48 Adjusted 63.29 F 1.58 F 2i.30

HandgriJ2: Source OF MS Adj.r

Pre-test 41.00 Group 1 107:"29 1.81 Pre-test 44.77 Post-test 43.83 Within 57 59.39 Post-test 48.87 Adjusted 44.98 R.Sg. .36 Adjusted 47.71 F 2.38 F 4.14*

Bent Arm Hang: Source OF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 18.67 Group "1 352"8."'87 15.12** Pre-test 23.80 Post-test 14.98 Within 57 233.58 Post-test 34.39 Adjusted 16.90 R. Sg. .36 Adjusted 32.47 F 1.72 r 15.76**

Les; Lifts: Source OF MS Adj.r

Pre-test 18.47 Group 1 66.14 3.54 Pre-test 18.16

Post-test 21.57 Within 57 18.67 post-test 19.30

Adjusted 21.48 R.Sg. .37 Adjusted 19.38

r .04 r 2(63

Twist and Touch: So·urce OF MS Adj.r

Pre-test 19.57 Group 1 2.51 .14 Pre-test 14.28

Post-test 21.62 Within 57 17.54 post-test 19.80

Adjusted 20.47 R. Sg. .20 Adjusted 20.94

F 17.97** F 22.92**

- aIl data has been rounded to the nearest hundredth

- the source is for the final F ratio

* significance at .05 level

** significance at .01 level.

" 59 1.1.';;

TABLE XIII

STATISTICAL INFORMATION MEANS, S.D.'s, F RATIOS.

CONTROL GIRLS EXPERIMENTAL BOYS MEANS MEANS

Standing Broad Jum;2: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 60.97 Group l' 98:46 4.29* Pre-test 61.97 Post-test 60.97 Within 57 22.93 Post-test 64.37 Adjusted 61.39 R.Sg. .64 Adjusted 63.95 F .26 F 2.77

Handgri;2: SoUrce DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 42.03 Group 1 457:T1 16.091• Pre-test 49.43 Post-test 42.23 Within 57 28.42 Post-test 53.37 Adjusted 44.80 R. Sg. .57 Adjusted 50.80 F 10.60** F 28.54**

Bent Arm. Hang: Source DF MS Ad~.F

Pre-test 23.97 Group l' 82733 • 1 Pre-test 31. 23 Post-test 33.48 Within 57 387.56 POClt-test 34.96 Adjusted 35.42 R.Sg. :'16 Adjusted 33.02 F 3.00 F .07

Leg Lifts: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 21.00 Group l' :11 .00 Pre-test 20.00

Post-test 18.93 Within 57 38.59 post-test 18.47

Adjusted 18.65 R.Sg. .17 Adjusted 18.74

F .57 F .07

Twist and Touch: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 18.35 Group 1" 26:06 1.28 Pre-test 20.98

Post-test 22.23 Within 57 20.44 post-test 22.00

Adjusted 22.80 R.Sg. .20 Adjusted 21.44

F 3.89 F .03

,

- aIl data has been rounded to the nearest hundredth

the source is for the final F ratio

* significant at .05 level

** significant at .01 level.

61

TOTAL CONTROL GROUP VERSUS TOTAL EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

The main purpose of this research was to study the

combined groups of boys and girls under a control and an

experimental treatment. The control boys and girls showed

improvement in the handgrip test, the twist and touch test,

and the bend, twist and touch test. The F ratios represent­

ed in Table XIV indicated on~y slight improvement in these

three tests over the 10 week treatment periode Since an

F ratio of 3.92 is needed for significance at the .05 level,

one could say that the control group showed no improvement

in any of the nine tests. However, the F ratios of 1.08,

1.74 and 1.38 respectively were significant at approxi­

mately the .30 level, thus indicating sorne improvement on

their part during the 10 weeks.

The experimental group showed improvement in the

same two tests as the control group, namely the handgrip

and bend, twist and touch. Critical ratios of 2.96 and

4.38 indicated significance at the .10 and .05 levels

respectively. In addition, significance was noted for the

bent arm hang.

When comparing the two·groups to determine the signi-

ficance, if any, of four or two periods of physical education

per week, it was found that the experimental group surpassed

62

the control group in handgrip, bent arm hang, leg lifts

and bend, twist and touch. This group, by referring to

Table XIV, gained F ratios of 1.91, 8.77, 1.15 and 3.00

respectively. However, the bent ,arm hang test' brought

the only ratio significant at the .01 level. The others

were significant at approximately the .10-.30 level.

The control group showed an F of 1.29 on the twist

and touch test which was significant at the .30 level only.

In aIl other tests no differences were found between the

control and experimental groups.

By referring to Table XV and XVI one observed the

variance existing in aIl tests that were administered to

these two groups. Attention was drawn particularly to

the bent arm hang where the standard deviation was extremely

high and the range very large.

63

TABLE XIV

STATISTICAL INFORMATION MEANS, S.D.t s , F RATIOS

TOTAL CONTROL TOTAL EXPERIMENTAL MEANS MEANS

Standin~ Broad JumE: SoUrce DF . MS Adj.F

Pre-test 61.22 Group l' 17:46 .65 Pre-test 60.54 Post-test 62.55 Within 117 27.03 Post-test 62.78 Adjusted 62.28 R.Sg. .56 Adjusted 63.05 F .25 F .03

Hand~riE: . Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 43.40 Group l' 91:13 1.91 Pre-test 45.22 Post-test 45.55 Within 117 47.65 Post-test 48.60 Adjusted 46.20 R.Sg. .50 Adjusted 47.95 F 1.08 F 2.96

Bent Arm Hang: Source DF MS Ad~.F

Pre-test 23.87 Group l' 2828:31 8. 7** Pre-test 24.95 Post-test 33.94 Wi.thin 117 322.57 Post-test 24.97 Adjusted 34.31 R.Sg,. .29 Adjusted 24.60

f· .13 F 5.34*

Le~ Lifts: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 19.58 Group l' 34:81 1.15 Pre-test 19.23

Post-test 19.17 Within 117 30.31 post-test 20.02

Adjusted 19.03 R.Sg. .21 Adjusted 20.11 F .12 F .64

Twist and Touch: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 16.32 Group l' 23:96 1.29 Pre-test 20.28

Post-test 21.02 Within 117 18.57 post-test 21.81

Adjusted 21.89 R.Sg,. .22 Adjusted 20.93

F 1.74 F .79

64 TABLE XIV (continued).

TOTAL CONTROL TOTAL EXPERIMENTAL MEANS MEANS

BendzTwistzTouch: Source DF . MS A~j.F

Pre-test 15.52 Group l" 16787 .00 Pre-test 14.95 Post-test 16.27 Within 117 5.62 Post-test 15.25 Adjus.ted 16.14 R.SS· .21 Adjusted 15.38 F 1.38 F 4.38*

Cable Jump: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 4.12 Group l" :6a .63 Pre-test 4.20 Post-test 3.87 Within 117 1.08 Post-test 4.05 Adjusted 3.88 R.SS· .16 Adjusted 4.03 F .16 F .79

Balance: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 4.12 Group "1 :Dl .00 Pre-test 4.00 Post-test 4.70 Within 117 3.07 Post-test 4.65 Adjusted 4.68 R.SS· .06 Adjusted 4.67 F .20 F .02

300 Yard Run: Source DF MS Adj.F

Pre-test 94.63 Group "1 107ii"2 .17 Pre-test 94.20

Post-test 85.85 Within 117 60.85 Post-test 85.10

Adjusted 85.77 R.SS· .21 Adjusted 85.18 F .05 F .22

- aIl data has been rounded to the nearest hundredth

- the source is for the final F ratio

* significant at .05 level

** significant at .01 level.

C •• Control

E Experimental

aIl data has been rounded to the nearest hundredth.

1 66

TABLE XVI

RANGE OF RAW SCORES PER TEST

TOTAL CONTROL TOTAL EXPERIMENTAL

Pre-test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test Standing Broad

Jump 35* 49 32* 32*

Handgrip 50* 42* 42* 54*

Bent Arm Hang 83* 92* 67* 63*

Leg Lifts 26* 28* 23* 26*

Twist & Touch 24* 22* 22* 21*

Bend-Twist-Touch 11* 12* 14* 13*

Cable Jump 5* 4* 4* 4'"

Balance 7 14 6* 6*

300 Yard Run 42* 34* 53* 38*

- using one-sixth of range as an indication of satisfactory

variance, * equa1s above-average variance.

1

CHAPTER V

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

Comparisons were ,made for sex differences and

significant differences regarding time allotment between

control and experimental groups. Certain trends became

evident as a result of these comparisons.

The experimental boys surpassed experimental girls

on the basis of critical ratios in static strength and

dynamic strength. The girls were better than boys on

trunk strength and gross body coordination. The adjusted

means showed the boys to be superior to girls on the

following tests: standing broad jump, handgrip, bent arm

hang, balance and 300 yard rune The girls were better on

the two flexibility tests as weIl as the cable jump and

leg lifts tests. In short, with the exception of trunk

strength, boys were superior on the strength and endurance

tests while the girls showed higher performance scores on

flexibility and coordination tests.

Those in the male control group displayed differ-

ences over the control group females on factors involving

explosive strength, static strength, trunk strength and

endurance. Girls showed up better only on the cable jump

test which measured coordination. Table XI (page 54 )

68

shows th~ adjusted means which pointed up differences on

the following tests, aIl of which favored the boys over

the girls: standing broad jump, handgrip, b~nt arm hang,

leg lifts, balance and endurance.- The girls surpassed boys

on twist and touch and cable jump tests.

In order to elaborate and consolidate differences

between boys and girls, evidence, contained in Tables XII

and XIII on pages57 and59 respectively, indicated that

boys were superior in dynamic strength, trunk strength,

explosive strength, static strength and endurance. The

girls showed superiority in extent flexibility and coordina­

tion. It was noteworthy that boys who underwent a control

treatment were superior on strength tests when compared

with girls who were in the experimental treatment. By

analysing adjusted means, the same picture was evident with

the exception of endurance and trunk strength.

In the standing broad jump test the work of Jenkins

(39) indicated that improvement was directly related to

age. Seils (64) also found that performance improved in

each successive grade level for primary school children.

The means found by Kane and Mereditv (42:205) clearly

indicated sex differences at age levels of 9 and Il years.

Adjusted means found after 10 weeks for the present study

indicated sex differences. In addition, the present

sample showed higher means compared to the sample of Kane

69

and Meredith. The means presented by Johnson (40:431)

indicated sex differences and are comparable to those

means obtained in the present study. It would seem that

on this test the expected normal occurrences took place

and may be summarized in this statement of Latchow (48:448),

"the mean scores for the boys in each grade and for each

test were higher than the rnean scores for girls in the

s ame grade."

On strength tests evidence by Govatos (33) and

Buxton (15) indicated superior performance by boys over

girls. The data presented in this present study tended

to support this premise. Reference should be made to the

research of Metheny (53) on the handgrip test. Excessive

variance, as indicated in Table IX on page 49 existed for

this test. Possibly the size of hand in relation to the

dynamometer was a contributory factor in the results of

this study.

Little or no improvement took place for any group

on the balance and cable jump tests. The ranges were very

small as were the standard deviations (Tables VIII and IX,

pages 48 and 49 ). it was questi­Apart from these reasons,

1 ver a 10 week onable that improvement could take pace 0

period. (19) The girls, regardless of their treatment

allocation, displayed superiority in the cable jump test

70

probably because of their natural tendency and practice

in skipping rope activities throughout their young lives.

The above normal variance as indicated by range

and standard deviations in Table IX, could be attributed

to modifications which took place in the testing procedure.

The bent arm hang was performed on the top level of a set

of staIl bars rather than on an isolated high bar. The

subjects themselves were used as counters and partners in

the performance of the leg lifts test rather than single

administrations to each subject. In the tests which did

follow strictly one subject per time administration, less

variance did occur. Examples of minimum variance were

evident in the twist and touch, balance and bend, twist

and touch tests. The handgrip and standing broad jump

tests, however, were exceptions to the "less variance"

occurrence.

When the total control group was compared with the

total experimental group, time allotment differences were '.

evident as weIl as improvement over the 10 week periode

On the basis of F ratios for differences between groups,

Table XIV on page 63 indicated the superiority of the

group having four periods per week on the following tests:

Handgrip _ static strength F equals 1.91 significance at approximately .10 level.

Bent Arm Hang _ dynamic strength F equals 8.77 significance at .01 level

71

Le~ l~f~s - trunk strength F equals 1.15 s~gn~f~cance at approximately .15 level.

Bend, twist and touch - dynamic flexibility F equals 3.00

significance at approximately .07 level.

The adjusted post-test means indicated superiority of the

experimental group in standing broad jump, hanctgrip, leg

lifts, cable jump and endurance. The control group showed

slight superiority in the twist and touch test only.

Therefore, if one considers the total number of tests, the

experimental group pointed out the advantages of four

periods per week in terms of four tests, three of which

measure strength factors.

The variance described in Table XVI on page 66

is similar to the separate comparisons of boys and girls

when the sample size was 30 rather than 60. It may be

that this was cumulativ~ ~h~n both boys and girls were

combined in each treatment.

Finally, comparisons of this sample with national

norms from C.A.H.P.E.R. and Fleishman indicated graphi­

cally the above-average performance of girls and the ne ar­

average performance of the boys. It must be pointed out

that Fleishman did not have norms for Il and 12 year old

children for many of his tests, hence the comparisons made

must be weighted accordingly.

S~RY.

This investigator wishes to stress the fact that a

72

comprehensive test battery of nine items was used as the

criterion measure. In addition, stringent statistical

techniques were utilized in the interpretati~n of the data.

Also the treatment period involved no loading or weighting

of the physical education program. Under these conditions

differences in time allotment were evident.

The evidence presented seems to add to already

existing knowledge concerning sex differences. Gains were

made over a 10 week period in most factors measured there­

by confirming Barry's findings (6). It seemed obvious that

regular physical education classes could make a contribution

to motor fitness even though athletic performance was not

used as a criterion.

Results similar to the Sutcliffe and Canham study

(68), namely in tests of strength and flexibility, were

obtained by the experimental group in this research.

Rath (62), whose research closely approximated this

study, concluded that for high school pupils:

l the quantity and kind of activities comprising a pr~gram determine its value !or physical development;

2. a program plann7d.to ach1eve specifie results can pro duce a strong, eff1C1ent body;. . the

3. greater physical development 1S ach1eved by test group having an overload program; l l d

4-. a uniform program for aIl high. schoo 5 panne for specific results seems to be des1rable.

The pro gram of the present study was unloaded

and

lt favo~ed the test group over the yet strength test resu s •

•

73

control group. The activities were not weighted as they

were in Rath's research and no attempt was made, in this

study, to achieve specifie results for one particular group.

It would appear, therefore, that strength tests

will, regardless of pro gram emphasis, yie1d pertinent

results. The quantity and kind of activities would probably

affect the attitude and performance of the subjects (71).

In summary, time a1lotment was a factor in the

achievement of the experimental group over the control

group, notably on strength tests. With regard to sex

differences, boys surpassed girls on strength factors

while the latter were better than the former on flexibi­

lit y and coordination factors.

b-r-... -

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS.

SUMMARY

It was the purpose of this research to study the

effects of two and four periods of physical education

on the motor fitness of grade VI boys and girls over a

10 week periode

Two hypotheses were presented by this investigator:

(1) It was hypothesized that those boys and girls who

engaged in two periods of physical education per week

would show significant improvement in motor fitness over

a ten week periode

(2) It was hypothesized that those boys and girls who

participated in four periods of physical education per

week would show significant improvement in motor fitness

over those who participated in two periods per week over

a ten week periode

The study was conducted in four public schools

having eight grade VI classes and a total of 201 boys

and girls. The sample was randomly selected 50 that the

control group had 60 boys and girls and the experimental

group had 60 boys and girls. The total sample of 120 boys

and girls underwent a normal and unloaded physical

-4

au -

7fl

education program for la weeks. The control group had

two periods per week and the experimental group had four

periods per week.

A motor fitness battery based on Fleishman's work

was used as the measuring instrument. This battery con­

tained nine itemswhich measured the following factors:

explosive strength dynamic strength static strength trunk strength extent flexibility dynamic flexibility coordination balance endurance

standing broad jump bent arm hang handgrip leg lifts twist and touch bend, twist and touch cable jump balance A 300 yard run

These tests were administered prior to and immediately

after the treatment periode Two days, or 90-100 minutes

were needed to cover the battery on the pre-test as weIl

as the post-test administrations. Each class tested had

one day of rest between the first and second day of the

pre-test as weIl as the post-test. Significant improve­

ment occurred for the total experimental group on dynamic

strength and flexibility factors. Experimental groupS

improved on static and dynamic strength factors while the

control groups improved on static strength and extent

flexibility factors.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study variance and standard deviations were

abnormally high in most tests. It is possible that the

p ---

76

modifications which were made in the testing procedure,

as a result of limited facilities and personnel, May have

been contributing factors.

It must be emphasized that the program used in

this study was unloaded and followed the activities '

normally covered at that time of 'year. It is reasonable

to assume that had the study been conducted at a different

time of year with different activities comprising the

program, results might have been quite different.

There is considerable evidence 'to show that motor

fitness is highly specifie. This investigator believes

that different program content might have produced sorne

variations in the findings with the same motor fitness

battery.

The results of this study confirm earlier findings

regarding the differances between boys and girls when

using a motor fitness battery of the type employed. This

was particularly evident in the comparison of boys! and

girls' scores on the strength items in the battery. The

superiority of the girls in the coordination and flexibi­

lit y items also confirms the results which earlier

researchers have reported.

Girls in both groups surpassed the boys in the

cable jump test. It seems reasonable to conclude that

environmental factors and previous practice in skipping

77

may have accounted für these results. The endurance factor

did not yield results anticipated at the outset. If an

alteration in the testing schedule nad been made different

results may have become evident.

Although those who engaged in four periods of

physical education per week demonstrated superiority in

motor fitness over those who were exposed to only two

periods, this investigator believes that more significant

differences might have been obtained if the study had been

conducted for a longer period of time. On the basis of

previous research reported, this investigator believes that

differences between means for the flexibility and balance

factors could not have been anticipated in a ten week periode

There is sorne doubt as to whether significant differences

could have been expected even if the treatment time had

been doubled.

In conclusion, significant differences were reported

in standing broad jump, handgrip, cable jump, bent ar.m hang

and leg lifts between those who received only two periods

of physical education and those who received four periods

when using an unloaded physical education program.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:

1. Since the results of this study indicate that four

78

periods of physical education par week result in a higher

level of mOtor fitne~~ than two periods, where possible the

present time allotment for physical education in elementary

schools should be adjusted accordingly.

2. In an at'tempt to distinguish more clearly certain

trends found in this study, a longer treatment be used

in future studies of this kind.

3. An alteration in the testing schedule be made for

future studies so that the two test days are better equated.

q. Research is lacking in this area of physical education

and valuable knowledge could be obtained as to the optimum

time allotment per week. Future studies could take into

consideration allotments ranging from zero to one per day

for a five day week.

5. Control and experimental groups should be drawn from

the same school so as to improve the study design. That is,

a school system containing three or more classes per grade

level would allow for random selection to treatments and

subjects would undergo similar treatment conditions with

the same teacher and identical program.

6. Program content for elementary physical education be

reviewed with a view to possible rearrangement and addition

of activities which would improve the motor fitness of the

pupils.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

79

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Adams, F.H., Bengtsson, E., Berven H. Wegelius C., "Physical Working Capacity of No~al School' Chi~dret;, Eleven Swedish City and Country", Pedl.atrl.cs, Vol .. 28: 1961, pp. 243-257.

2. Adamson, G. T., "Effect of Systematic Overload on Strength, Physical Fitness and Physical Effici­ency of School Boys", Journal of Physical Education, Vol.44: November 1952, pp. 109-112.

3. American Association of Health, Physical Education and Recreation Youth Fitness Test, American Association of Health? Physical Education and Recreation Youth Fitness Manual, (AAHPER-NEA, Fitness Department, 1201 16th Street N.W., Washington 6, D.C.) 1958.

4. Barrow, H.M., "Test of Motor Ability for College Men", Rese"arch Quarterly, Vol.25:3 1954, pp.253-260.

5. Barry, A.J., Cureton, T.K., "Factorial Analysis of Physique and Performance in Pre~pubescent Boys", Research Quarterly, Vol.32:3 Oct.196l, p.283.

6. Barry, T.J., "Measuring Resul ts of Training in Physical Education in an Elementary School", American Physical Education Review 26: 119-26 March 1921.

7 • Bengtsson, E., "Working Capaci ty of Normal School Chi1dren, Evaluated by Submaximal Exercise on the Bicycle Ergometer and Compared with Adults" , Acta Medica Scandinavia, Vol.154: 1956, pp.91-190.

B. Blesh, T. E., and Scholz, A. E., "Ten Year Survey of Physical Fitness Tests at Yale University", Research Quarterly, Vol.28: Dec. 1957, pp.32l-326.

9. Bliss, J.G., "A Study of Progressio~ Based on Age, Sex and Individual Differences l.n Strength and Skill", American Ph,sical Education Review 32: " January-February 19 7, pp. 11-21, pp.85-99.

80

10. Bookwa1ter, K.W., "A Critica1 Ana1ysis of Achieve­ments in Physica1 Fitness Programs for Men at Indiana University", Research Quarter1y, Vol. 111-: May, 1911-3, pp. 184-193.

Il. Bookwa1ter, K.W., "A Critica1 Evaluation of Some Existing Means of C1assifying Boys for Physica1 Education", Research Quarterly 10: 3, Oct .19 39 pp. 119-127.

12. Borg, W.E., Educationa1 Research: An Introduction. (New York: David McKay Co.înc.,1963) p.169

13. Brown, H.S., "Comparative Study of Motor Fitness Tests", Research Quarter1y 25: 1 March 19511- p.10.

14. Brownel1, C.L., and Hagman, E.P., Physical Education­Foundations and Princip1es, First Edition. (McGraw-Hi11 Book Co. Inc., New York,Toronto, London, 1951) p.353.

15. Buxton, Doris, "Extension of the Kraus-Weber Test", Research Quarter1y 1!.: 3 October 1957, pp. 210-217.

16. Cearley,Jess E., "Linearity of Contributions of Ages, Heights, and Weights to Prediction of Taack and Field Performances", Research Quarter1y 28:3 Oct. 1957, ~p.2l8-222.

17. Clarke H.H., Application of Measurement to Health and Physical Education~ 2nd Edition. (prentice­Hall Inc., New York, 1 53) pp. 15, 155-185

18. Clarke, H.H. and Carter, G.H., "Oregon Simplifications of Strength and Physica1 Fitness Indices", Research Quarterly 30: 1 Mar. 1959, pp. 3-10.

19. Cron, G. W. and Pronko, N. H., "Deve1opment of the Sense~~ of Balance in Schoo1 Children", Journal of Educa­tion Research, Vol.51, Sept 1957, pp.33-37

20. Cumbee, F. Z., "A Factor Analys is of Motor Coordination", Re·searchQuarterly 25:4 Dec J.954, pp.412-28.

•

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Sl

Cumming, G.R., ~d Cumming, R.M., "Working Capacity of No:mal Ch71dren Tes~ed.ona Bicycle Ergometer", Canadl.an Medl.cal Assocl.atl.on Journal, Vol.8S,1963. pp. 351-55

Cureton, T.K., "Improvement in Motor Fitness Associa­ted with Physical Education and Physical Fitness Clinic Work," Research Quarterly, Vo1.14 • May 1943. pp. 154-157.

Cureton, T.K., "Putting Physical Fitness into Physical Education ", Journal of the Canadian Association of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Vol.29. Oct-Nov 1962 #1 p.2l.

Cureton, T.K., "The Unfitness of Young Men in Motor Fitness", The Journal of American Medical Associ­ation123: 1943, pp.69-74.

Danielson, C. D., "The Relative Effects of Participation . in Intrascholastic Athletics and in a Service Program", Microfilm, University of Wisconsin, 1954.

Espenschade, A., "Motor Performance in Adolescence", Child Develoyment Vol.5 #1 1940. (Washington, D.C. Serial No.24 , p.9.

Espenschade, A., "Restudy of Relationships Between Physical Performance of School Children and Age, Height and Weight", Research Quarterly 34:2 May 1963, p.152.

Fleishman, E.A., Examiner's Manual for the Basic Fitness Tests, (prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood cliffs, New Jersey, 1964).

Fleishman, E.A., The Structure and Measurement of Ph~sical Fitness, (prentice-Haii rnc., Englewood Cll.ffs, New Jersey, 1964).

Franklin, C.C., and Lehsten, N.G., "Indian~ Physical Fitness Tests for the Elementary Level (Grades 4-S), The Physical Educator, Vol.5 #3, May 1948.

Garland, J.J., "The Effect of Genef.al Phy~ical Educa­tion Upon Athletic Performance , Amerl.can Journal of Physical Education, p. 87.

--------------------~

82

32. Godfrey, C.M., "Physical Fitness" Journal of Canadian Associatio"n "of Health~ Physi~al EdUcation and Recreation, April-May 1964 Vol.30 #4, p.i6. '

33. Govatos, L.A., "Relationships and Age Differences in Growth Measures and Motor Skills n , Child Development 30: Sept 1959, pp. 333-340.

34. Green, H.J., "Cardio-Respiratory Changes in School Age Children with Implications on program", March 1965. From a pa:per; University of Alberta.

35. Gross, Elmer A., and Casciani, Jerome A., "Value of Age, Height and Weight as a Classification Deviee for Secondary School Students in the Seven AAHPER Youth Fitness Tests", Research Quarterly 33: 1962, pp.5l-58.

36. Hein, F. V., and Ryan, A. T., "The Contributions of Physical Activity to Physical Health" ,Res"earch Qüart"erly 31: "#2 part II, May 1960, pp. 263-285.

37. "In Search of Physical Fitness", The Royal Bank of Canada Monthly Newsletter, Vol.39, #1, Head Office, Montreal, Quebec, Jan 1958, pp. 3,4.

3B. lsmail, A.H., and Cowell, C.C., "Purdue Motor Fitness Test Batteries", Research Quarterly 33:4 Dec 1962, pp. 553-558.

39. Jenkins, Lulu M., liA Comparative Study of l1otor Achievements of Children of Five, Six and Seven Years of Age", Ph.D., Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, New yO:rk

40.

41.

42.

1930.

Johnson, Warren (ed). Science and Medicine of Exer­cise and Sports. (Harper Bros., pübll.shers, New York, 1960, p.431i.

" U· Jones, H.E., "Motor Performance and Growth ~ nl.V-er"sity ofCaliforniaPublica:tions in Chl.ld Development. p.172.

Kane, R.J., and Meredith, A.V., "Ability in the. Standing Broad Jump of Elementary School Chl.ldren: 7, 9 and Il Years of Age", Research Quarterly 23: #2 May 1952, pp.198-208.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

83

Kirchner, G., "The Construction of a Battery of Tests Designed to Measure Strength, Endurance, Power and Speed Among Boys of Elementary School Age", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon, 1959.

Kraus, H., and Hirschland, R. P., "Minimum Muscular Fitness Tests in School Children", Research Quarterly 25: 2 ,May 1954, pp.178-88.

Landiss, C.W., "Influences of Physical Education Activities in Motor Abi1ity and Physical Fit­ness of Male Freshmen", Research Quarterly, Vol.2S, Oct 1955, pp.295-307.

Larson, A.L., "A Factor Ana1ysis of Motor Abi1ity Variables and Tests with Tests for Co11ege Men", Research Quarter1y 12:3 1941 Oct., pp.499-517.

Larson, A.L., "A Factor and Va1idity Analysis of Strength Variables and Tests with a Test Combina­tion of Chinning, Dipping and Vertical Jumpll, Research Quarterly Il:4 Dec 1940, p.82.

Latchow, M., "Measuring Se1ected Motor Skills in Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Grades", Research Quarter1y 25: 4, Dec 1954, pp.439-48.

MacIntosh, D., "The Effect of a RegulaI' Exercise Program on the Physical Efficiency of Grade X Male Students at Cres cent Heights High School in Calgary, Alberta", M.A. Thesis, University of Washington, 1960.

Mattews, D.K., Measurement in Ph sica1 Education, 2nd Edition, W.B. Saunders Co., Ph~ladelph~a & London, 1964), pp. 5, 92, 128, 129.

McC1oy, C.H., "A Factor Analysis of Tests of Endurance Il , Research Qual'terly 27: 2 May 1956, pp. 213-16.

McCloy, C.H., and Young, N.D:, "Tests and ~easure­men"ts in Heal th and Ph Sl.cal Educatl.on , 3l'd Editl.on. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1954), Chaptel' 17.

1

1

84

53. Metheny, E., "The Present Status of Strength Testing for Children of Elementary School and Pre-School Agen, Resea:rch Quarterly 12:1 March 1941, pp. 115-130.

54. Moorhouse and Miller, Physiology of Exercise, (C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1959)

55. Nash, Jay B., "The Tragedy of Free Time", Journal ofCanadian Association of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, December-January 1964 Vol. 30, #2, pp. 9, 32.

56. Oberteuffer, D., Physical Education, Revised Edition. (Harper Bros., New York, 1956). pp. 80, 81.

57.

58. Ost:t1a.nd, P.O., "Experimental· Studies of Physical Working Capacity in Relation to Sex and Age", Copenhagen, Ejnar Munksgaard, 1952.

59. Phillips, B.E., "J.C.R. Test", Research Quarterly, 18:1, Mar 1947.

60. Phillips, M., "Study of a Series of Physical Edu­cation Tests by Factor Analysis", Research Quarterly 20:1, Mar 1949, pp. 60-72.

61. "Physical Fitness of Senior High School Boys and Girls Participating in Selected Physical Education programs in New York State", Research Quarterly 35:3, part 2, Oct 1964, pp. 403-407.

62. Rath, Emil. "A Study of Effects of Different· Physical Education Programs on Strength Index of Ninth Grade Boys", Research Quarter1y 13: 1942, pp. 169-177.

63. Robinson, S., "Experimental Studies i~ Phys~ca1 . Fitness in Relation to Age", Arbel.sphysl.o Logl.e, Vol. 10, 1939, pp. 252-321.

85

6~. Seils, Leroy, "The Relationship Between Measures of Physical Growth and Gross Motor Perform­ance of Primary Grade School Children", Research Quarterly '22: 2 May 1951, pp. 244-260.

65. Seymour, E.W., "Follow Up Study on Simplification of the Strength and Physical Fitness Indices", Research Quarterly 31:2 May 1960, part 1, pp. 208-216.

66. Steinhaus, A.H., Toward an Understanding of Hea1th and Physical Education, (William C. Brown Co., Dubuque, Iowa, 1963), pp. 5, 63.

67. Steinhaus, A.H., Exercise and Fitness. A collection of Papers Presented at the Co110quim on Exercise and Fitness, (sponsored by:the University of Illinois College of Physica1 Education and the Athletic Institute, 1960, pp. 230-235).

68. Sutcliffe, A., and Canham, J .W., "Experiments in Homework and Physica1 Education". As reported in A.D. Munroe Pure and App1ied Gymnastics, 1955. (Edward Arnold Ltd., London, Eng1and) pp.21-24.

69. The Canadian Association of Hea1th, Physica1 Educa­tion and Recreation Fitness-Performance Test Manua1, (Canadian Association of Hea1th, Physi­cal Education and Recreation, Toronto, 1966).

70. "The Duke of Edinburgh Speech to the Canadian Medi­cal Association" June 1959 News Media Re1ease.

71. Taddanio, Dominick A., "Effect of Daily Fifteen-. Minute Periods of Ca1isthenics Upon the PhYS1-cal Fitness of Fi-fth Grade Boys and Girls", Research Quarterly 37:2, May 1966, pp. 276-81.

72. Torpey, J.E., "Strength Tests for Young Chi1dren", A Pilot StudY4 Research Quarter1y 31:2 May 1960, pp. 238-39.

73. Warner, W. Lloyd, Meeker, M, Ee11s, K., Social Ctass in America, (Chicago: Science Research AssOc1ates 1949).

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

Whittle, H. Douglas, "The Effects of Elementary School Physical Education Program upon sorne Aspects of Physical Development, Motor Fit­ness, Motor Educability, Body Flexibility, and Personality of Twelve Year Old Boys" Microfilm! University of Oregon, 1956. '

86

Widc.::.op, J.H., "Fitness and Testing", Journal of Canadian Association of Heal th, Ph~sical Education and Recreation, Vol.303, Feb-Mar 1964, pp. 19-20

Widdop, J.H., "On Measurement in Physical Educa­tion". McGill Uni versi ty 1962, pg. 66.

Widdop, J. H., "The Motor Performance of Educable Mentally Retarded Children with Particular Reference to the Identification of Factors Associated with Individual Differences in Performance". Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1967.

Wilbur, E.A., "A Comparative Study of Physical Fitness Indices as Measured by Two Programs of Physical Education: the Sports Method and the Apparatus Method". Research Quarterly. 14:3, Oct 1943, pp. 326-332.

Wipper, K.A.W., "A Study of the Influence of Two Types of Physical Education Program on the. Physical Fi tness of Participants", UniversJ. ty of Toronto M.A. Thesis 1958.

Youth Physical Fitness Test, Youth physical Fitness Manual President's Council on Youth Fitness, Superi~tendent of Documents, United States Gov­ernment printing Office, Washington, D.C. July' 1961.

Zimmerman, H., "Physical Performance of Children Taught by Special Teachers and by Classroom Teachers", Research Quarterly 30:3 Oct 1959, p.357

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

GIRLS CONTROL GROUP VERSUS BOYS CONTROL GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS

87

PRE-TEST . POST-TEST POST-TEST TEST - Adj"usted

~ S.D. ~ S.D. Means - -Standing Broad

Jump G 60.97 7.81 60.97 7.95 60.33

B 61.~7 7.7~ 6~.13 8.25 6~.35

Handgrip G ~2.03 8.67 ~2.23 6.3~ ~1.95

B ~~.77 10.66 ~8.87 9.86 50.56

Bent Arm Hang G 23.97 15.29 33.~8 23.~3 31.93

B 23.80 16.5~ 34.39 24.15 36.89

Leg Lifts G 21.00 4.5~ 18.93 7.03 17.98

B 18.16 6.63 19.30 6.02 19.69

Twist and Touch G 18.35 5.2~ 22.23 4.48 22.51

B 1~.28 4.92 19.80 5.34 21.18

Bend-Twist-Touch G 15.53 2.35 16.10 2.81 15.88

B 15.50 2.~0 16.43 2.12 16.42

4.27 .85 4.28 Cable Jump G 4.17 1.00

B 4.07 1.50 3.47 1.43 3.48

Balance G 4.22 1.26 4.54 1.17 4.52

B 4.01 1.58 4.86 2.73 4.89

Endurance G 97.73 9.02 87.30 7.90 86.00

B';~91. 5 3 11.94 84.40 7.20 85.70

G Control Girls

B Control Boys Al1 data has been rounded to the nearest hundredhh

~

•

·88 APPENDIX B

GIRLS EXPERIMENTAL GROUP VERSUS BOYS EXPERIMENTAL GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS

TEST PRE-TEST

Mean

Standing Broad Jump G 59.12

B 61.97

Randgrip G 41.90 B 49.43

Bent Arm Rang G 18.67 if 31.23

Leg lifts G 18.47 B 20.00

Twist & Touch G 19.57 if 20.98

Bend-Twist-Touch G 14.43

13 15.46

Cable Jump G 4.27 B 4.13

Balance G 3.88 B 4.12

Endurance G 97.03 B 91. 37

G Experimental Girls

B Experimental Boys

S.D.

6.44 7.12

7.71 8.64

13.07 16.56

5.00 5.47

4.56 4.92

2.19 3.30

.77 1.18

1.48 1.31

9.82 10.49

POST-TEST POST-TEST

Mean S.D. Adjusted Means

61.20 6.39 61.83 64.37 7.59 64.15 .

43.83 8.97 44.11 53.37 9.26 51.67

14.98 10.46 16.53 34.96 18.25 32.46

21.57 4.51 22.52 18.47 6.28 18.07

21.62 3.64 21.34 22.00 5.31 20.61

15.07 2.42; 15.28 15.43 3.07 15.44

4.23 1. 02 4.22. 3.87 .88 3.85

1~. 51 1.24 4.53 4.80 1.48 4.78

85.60 10.63 84.65 84.60 8.42 85.55

All data has been rounded to the nearest hundredth

GROUP l

GROUP II

GROUP III

GROUP IV

GROUP V

GROUP VI

APPENDIX C

SUTCLIFFE AND CANHAM TESTS

Tests cf Physique

1. Height 2. Weight 3. Chest expansion 4. Chest exercise 5. Vital capacity

Tests of Supp1eness

1. Arms stretching upwards 2. Trunk bending downwards 3. Tnunk bending sideways 4. Trunk turning'

Tests of Strength

1. Hanging over grasp arms bending 2. High front support arms bending 3. Back lying, legs raising 4. Strength of kick 5. Strength of throw

Tests of Athletic Abili!y

1. 50 yards run 2. 440 yards run 3. Standing long jump 4. Standing high jump 5. High kicking 6. Dribbling race 7. Potato race

Tests of Reaction Time

1. One 1ight 2. Coloured light 3. Sound test

Tests of Posture

1. Assessment of posture 2. Posture defects.

89

l, r \ '

1

90

APPENDIX D

BROWN H.S., "COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MOTOR FITNESS TESTS" (13)

S.zo+Ol?l \ta \() "0 10 .zap.zo )(Ul?-a 1.0 \c) ~ .... ,'-

UOl:+l?tOSl: 10 I\oùanba.z,i n) t'll'il..... ri) - '"

l\n

6it • W sdl:ttl:t.{d N

-,~

~ -lit ·w·a ttl?H

tit 11 Il ~

t it • V • ~ uo s.zl?~ :;t ......

tit Il 11

Oit ·V·~ UOs.zl?~ ....

l':!o Oit ·v .za+uad.zl?;) Oit ·r·v Ul?Ulat°;)

l\n

Lê "M·!' Ul?U1at°;) Sê l?UlUl:I AOt;)OW

1

Il

i!

i:!

ti

1

t6

C<~ ~m~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~H ~~~~~~~ O~o ~a~~O~~~m ~~~~m~~~o~~~~~~m~~~~O ~o~mo~~~~m~~m~moo~~~~ ~O~~~~~~~O~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ 0 ~~ 00 O~ ~~~ ~~mm~~ O~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ro ~ m~~~m ~I a~ ~~~ o~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~~ ~~o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ro~ <~~ ~ 0

N

~

N

f\.I G'IUl

N

N

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ m 0 ~ 0 ~ m ~ ~ 1 m ~

o

....

.... -T ..... ~ .... .... .... tu

..... -/ .... 1 ....

l\)

N

1

N a-

.J:- O)

- ()l - ü.I

Url N

-t: w

McCloy C.H McCloy Emma Coleman J. W •

u) Rar1ck L. Harr1s J.E. Wendler A.J.

-f:. Hutto L.E. Carpenter A • Methenv E. Roulhac C.M.

IJJ Coleman A. J • Carpenter A. Larson L.A. Carpenter A.

li li n

Larson L.A. " fi Il

..... Cureton T.K.

34 35 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 40 40 40 40 41 41 41 41 42 Ù;ll 1 1 l Seashore-H.G. 42 ~ -

~

U\. RS:IUI

" "" () ' ....... 1 ......

R" o

(\J Hall D.M. 42 , ..... / / 1 1 1 1 t.» Carpenter A. 43 TNI11 M l ~ --

(7\ Latham D'.E. 45 Schafer-Jones 47

~1 f Cureton T.R. 47 l .... T T / Ph1ll1ps M. 49

CO ~ UJ 1 McCrawL. W • ~

làOl~~~I~ Ut - -0' W N Freq uemcy of ...... isolation

~I~~I~I 1 II~~ It Rank order of

factors

(panu~+uoo) a xraN3ddV

APPENDIX E 92

SUMMARY OF MOTOR FITNESS BATTERIES

(Or-- N ex> ..c:r-- :1-:1-:1- U) r-f +'r-f ~ bO .:t 00 M ~ ~ H M.:t +,00 0 0 G.lH 0 G.l 0 +' +' H~ +' .0 ;:E: ~ 0 ...,r:t.. 0 G.l ;:E: CI) ~~ ~ 00 tU fil ~~ ~~ '" ~

~~ ~ fil ~+' fil ~ Oon Oon 0 H ~ 0 0.-/ ::s r:t.. on ~ fIlr-f r-fr-f bO G.l G.l Hr-f tU

~ 'O+' MOn C,) on G.l bD'n Hon ~ '::::0.-/ tU.o 0.0 H o ..:: tU.o ~ H~ ~<!; ;:E:<!; 0 p:jH ~<C PUllups X X ")( , _X J( S~tups X X

Leg l~fts 50 ~d.dash ')( ~. 40 _yd.shuttle run X 600 yd.run-walk )( Std.brd.jump )(' X X X tw~st & touch so~tba].l throw X' X ben~,tw~st~touch pushups )( )( )( Balance A vert~cal Ju."ll~ X -~ X cable jump straddle ch~ns >< sguat thrusts 100yd.shuttle run d~st.throws

X gri p s treJ'!g~ .!ung caQac~ty X X 300 yd.run-walk flexed arm hang leg ra~se G hold )(

chest ra~se-hold x le~_ ral.se-hold X toe touch-hold x dodgl.ng run l(

bar snap )(

CHINNIng )('

dl.ps X baseball throw )(

. high jump )( wel.ght thl'owl.ng )( X' 160 yd.~otato roll )(

back ll.ft X ')(

leg ll.ft~ X X zig zag run )(

wall pass 'x 60 yd.dash X 5 second l'un stop test basketball goal Classl.f~cat~on Ind. )(

Right & left ~r~~ lx

•

APPENDIX E (continued) 93

en C'l 000 C'l Ct) C'l ta co ta Ln 00 CO .:t (\/ C"- M Q) . s:: . Cl)

.f.J Cl) s:: or-! . H rd 00 ~ ""':l Q) El or-! Il::: · s:: .s= 0 Q) j:.t.l Il::: .s= 00 .s= 00 s:: ~ n. · .f.J 00 0 or-! or-! "CI

~ C,) ~ or-! H Q) r-f H · 0 r-f or-! r-f r-f ~ C,) ""':l ~ 1:0 ~ ~ H p., Pullups >( X X )( X s~tups X X X X leA l~fts X 50 yd.dash ~ X X 40 yd.shuttle run X 600 yd.run-walk X )( Std.brd.jump X X X X' tw~st 8 touch X softball throw X bend,tw~st,touch X ~ushu.J>_s X X K Balance A X ... vert~cal .iU1'l!~ X ')( X cable j UJl!~ X straddle ch~ns X squat thrusts >< X X X 100 yd.shutt-.!e run )( X d~st.throws X gri.Q strength lx lunz capacl.ty 300 yd.run-walk -~ flexed arm hang X l~g ra~se 8 hold chest ra~se-hold X le_g ra~se-hold toe touch-hold dodg;Lng .run bar snap ch~nn~ng X .;..:.. d~ps baseball throw X h~gh jump we~ght throw~ng 160 _yd.potato rolJ, back l~ft l~g l~ft z~g zag run wall pass 60 yd. dash 5 second run X stop test )(

basketball _goal )(

Class~f~cat~on Ind. R~ght 8 left gr~E

'\

Name ________________________ __ Age on day·of testing in yrs., mos., days. (lst) (2nd)

School ____________________ ~~~ days Tre:atmen:t : ""~Ab="""~s"~en~"t~:~--lst-Testing n - 2-nâ-Testîng

Raw Percent- Index Raw Percent- Index Test . Score" ile oints Scoreile points

A)Standi~g bro~Q j~

B)Handgrip

C)Bent Arro hang

D)Leg lifts

E)Twist and touch

F)Bend-twist-touch

G) Cable j UJIip

H)Balance A

I)300 yard run-walk

SUBJECT NUMBER ___ _ TIME ___ _

H Z t:1 H <: H t:1

~ t-<

CI) (") 0 ~ trj

CI)

::I: trj trj loi

~ t-cJ trj Z t1 H :><: t-rj

ta ~